The Planning Applications Committee met in September and made decisions on a number of planning applications, including the refusal of an application relating to affordable housing contributions at Springfield Hospital, and the approval of a number of other applications with conditions.

Springfield Hospital Affordable Housing

The committee voted to refuse application 2024/3677 for alterations to the Springfield Hospital main building, specifically Phase 6C, which includes Fir Tower, Oak Tower, and Teak Tower. However, they unanimously approved the associated listed building consent application 2024/3662.

The main point of contention was the applicant's request to remove the requirement to provide five affordable housing units, as initially agreed, based on an updated viability report.

Julia Kelly, Principal Planner for the West Team Development Management, explained that the original plan included 32 dwellings in the main building, with five affordable units in an adjacent part of the building. The applicant's updated viability report claimed the scheme could no longer support affordable housing, a conclusion disputed by the council's independent assessor, PBS Dorking.

The council's officers recommended refusal of the application, arguing that the applicant had not demonstrated that the development had maximised affordable housing delivery, contrary to policy LP23 of the Local Plan and the objectives of the London Plan and the NPPF¹.

Councillor Coakley supported the officer's recommendation, clarifying that refusing the application would mean the original consent to build the five affordable units on site would remain.

Councillor Govindia raised concerns about potential delays and suggested a different approach to negotiations to ensure the project's completion, but Councillor Tony Belton, Chair of the committee, pointed out that the applicant had accepted the planning permission previously and was aware of the risks.

Councillor Pridham questioned how far the £700,000 offered by the applicant would go in providing affordable housing elsewhere. It was noted that the council's independent assessor had calculated a payment in lieu of £1.26 million using GLA methodology².

Councillor Worrow asked about the basis of any appeal, with officers clarifying that the main focus would be the benchmark land value in the viability assessment.

Councillor Guy Humphreys raised concerns about rising build costs and suggested a pragmatic approach of accepting the £700,000 offer to ensure delivery of some affordable units.

Ultimately, the committee voted to refuse the application based on the failure to maximise affordable housing delivery.

Eardley Road Development

The committee approved application 2024/4542 for 151-157 Eardley Road, which involves the demolition of existing buildings and the erection of a three-storey building with a basement level, providing nine new residential units and a commercial unit. Councillor Govindia abstained from the vote.

The development proposes a commercial unit at ground and basement floor level, restricted to Use Class E(g)(i)(ii)(iii) - offices, research and development, and light industrial processes.

Councillor Humphreys expressed concern that the commercial space might later be converted into residential units to circumvent affordable housing policies.

Councillor Sara Apps raised queries about noise levels and mechanical ventilation, as well as parking provisions in the area. Don Murchie, a principal transport planner in the council's transport strategy department, clarified that the area is not a controlled parking zone.

Bellamy Street Rear Extensions

The committee approved application 2025/1083 for alterations to 14 Bellamy Street, including the excavation of a basement, erection of rear and side extensions, and alterations to the entrance. Councillor Finna Ayres voiced aesthetic objections to the front elevation, calling the porch absolutely potty and more Disneyland , but acknowledged there were no grounds for refusal.

Balham High Road Station Parade Flats

The committee approved application 2025/1984 for flats D and I, 7-8 Station Parade, Balham High Road, which involves the formation of two roof terraces above the four-storey back additions.

Woodbury Street Flat Conversion

The committee approved application 2025/2058 for 64 Woodbury Street, which involves the erection of a mansard roof extension and formation of a roof terrace to provide a one-bedroom flat. Councillor Ayres commented that it would be a rubbish flat , but acknowledged it met the required standards.

Thomas's Preparatory School Pupil Numbers

The committee approved application 2025/2196 relating to Thomas's Preparatory School, Broomwood Road, which seeks amendments to a Section 106 legal agreement to allow for an increase in permitted pupil numbers to a maximum of 680.

Councillor Apps requested that traffic be monitored to ensure the impact was as expected. Councillor Worrall raised concerns about the school breaching caps in the past and how to ensure compliance. It was noted that the school has a register and the council can seek an injunction at the High Court if a breach is known.

Other Matters

The committee noted reports on recent decisions, closure of investigation files, and closed appeals. Councillor Govindia asked why the council was withdrawing an application relating to A79 Falcon Road, and Nick Calder, the head of development management, said he would check and provide an answer. Councillor Apps noted that the appeal decision date for Mount Clare did not state what the decision was.